Re: Dumb question for off-list discussion -- WAS: ULTRA ATA/100 announced

From: Matthias Andree (ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de)
Date: Wed Jun 07 2000 - 05:26:34 EST

Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:

> Offically that is correct........however, there are rumors that I can not
> verify.........but ATA/133 is a back alley issue. Due to the laws of
> physics, NOP -- IMHO. However with a beefed up HOST for more current and
> a beefed up drive interface the back alley may see a glimps of the street
> before it is stomped on by lawyers. Politics is not here for discussion.

But if you beefed up the physical transport layer (read: cable) and when
for termination and so on, why would one not use differential SCSI
instead? It's already there and it seems it could reach the same price
as IDE if the marked share rose.

I mean, why do companies spend money on re-inventing wheels,
re-inventing the SCSI wheels in ATA in particular? It's not "back-wards
compatibility" if it's about pushing ATA/66 to /100 or /133, is it? 

-- 
Matthias Andree

                Where do you think you're going today?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:28 EST